Joris Dobbelsteen wrote: > Now we have at least one different model, lets mix in other captures and > situations. So it cannot be done with only YOUR data, I fully agree. > But if you have sufficient data you can find the generalization of the > model to make it work (resonable) in sufficient situations. > Of course models need time to evolve, but so does the implementation > currently at a slow rate. From do it yourself, to scripts, to the > current autovacuum integration (which is good). From doing all tables > sequentially to having some intelligence by update thresholds, to what > will be next. > > I think you should better solve the problem is this ways, as models are > relative easy to compare compared to arguments without > analyzable/simulatible data. To be frank, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I'm sure more analysis is good; that's easy to agree with. However, I don't want to be trapped in a design that's too hard to implement, or too hard for DBAs to manage. There have been proposals to add these knobs: - maximum number of simultaneous processes (and make it more than 1) - times of day on which to change parameters (i.e. disable vacuum altogether, or make it more agressive or less) Do you have further ideas? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
